Kenney, MacKay duel will play on
John Ivison, National Post · Jun. 13, 2011 | Last Updated: Jun. 13, 2011 2:02 AM ET
Like Macbeth weighing up the murder of King Duncan, there was "no spur" for the actions of Peter MacKay and Jason Kenney at the Conservative convention, beyond "vaulting ambition" -an intense desire for power -that threatened to o'er leap itself and tear the party apart.
The Conservatives should be on the crest of a wave. Stephen Harper even suggested that the best is yet to come if the Tories can profit from the inevitable end of the fairytale romance between the NDP and Quebec.
Yet, even as the talk of wooing Quebec was still hanging in the air, delegates were being asked to vote on a proposal to reform the way the party elects its leaders, in favour of a system that would have further alienated a Quebec delegation that already feels unloved.
The resolution would have ended the system under which every riding carries equal weight regardless of membership numbers, in favour of one where larger associations would have more votes. The motion was proposed by Ontario MP Scott Reid, but everyone at the convention knew he was really a proxy for Mr. Kenney, who will likely be a contender in any race to succeed Mr. Harper and would benefit if large associations in the West and Ontario had more votes.
In the other corner, Mr. MacKay presented himself as the trusty defender of a status quo that he claimed was responsible for delivering a majority. This was a less altruistic position than it appeared at first blush. If he is to have any hope of succeeding Mr. Harper, the former leader of the Progressive Conservative party needs Quebec and Atlantic Canada to punch above their membership weight.
The resolution was eventually defeated, thanks one suspects, to direction from above (i.e. Mr. Harper) to get it off the floor with minimal damage to party unity. It was noticeable that an electronic vote was not taken after the show of hands suggested a majority were opposed. Many Conservatives wanted the weekend to be a raucous celebration of the majority victory. And it was. The hospitality suites were hot, blue and righteous on Friday night with over-served Conservatives flocking from room to room in search of further refreshment as the stocks of booze ran low.
Yet the seeds of discontent have been sown by ambitious men who put their own agenda ahead of party unity. There are valid arguments on both sides. The resolution put forward by Mr. Reid would provide an incentive for riding associations to add members. Enshrining the status quo in the constitution would have been a signal to Quebecers that the party was serious about making the party a comfortable home for them. But both sides knew that this one point of disharmony would obscure all the other points of agreement, and still they forced the issue. It's important to note that this was not just a media obsession -delegates were equally preoccupied by the outbreak of open warfare on the convention floor.
This could all be presented as healthy debate within a democratic party. But some of the discourse was pretty salty and everyone knows that it will be even more vitriolic at the next convention, when the party is not revelling in the rosy afterglow of an election victory. This was the first serious skirmish in a war between Peter MacKay and Jason Kenney that looks as if it will be waged for years to come.
jivison@nationalpost.com
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Harper Doctrine - Ibbitson 12 June 2011
The Harper Doctrine: Conservative foreign policy in black and white
JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail (Includes Correction)
Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 10:43PM EDT
724 comments Email Print/License Decrease text size
Increase text size A few years ago at a conference in Washington, an American diplomat asked a Canadian journalist a blunt question.
“Why doesn’t Canada show up any more?” he wanted to know. “You’re just not at the table like you used to be.”
Canada under Stephen Harper is, emphatically, back at the table – pounding it, actually, while loudly brandishing what could be called the Harper Doctrine.
Not that long ago, the Canadian military had been starved to the brink of extinction, the federal government had been forced to cut back on peacekeeping commitments, foreign aid was all aspiration and little execution, and our diplomats trumpeted soft power because we had no other kind to offer.
Today, Canada has the political will and military muscle to back up a new and more militant foreign policy.
The Prime Minister reflected this new reality in his triumphalist speech to the Conservative party faithful on the weekend, where he articulated Canada’s approach to the world in a single, potent sentence.
“We know where our interests lie and who our friends are,” he declared, “and we take strong, principled positions in our dealings with other nations, whether popular or not.”
He didn’t call it the Harper Doctrine, but we can. It is startling both in its boldness and its utter lack of nuance.
Under the Harper Doctrine, Canada doesn’t just support the state of Israel. It supports Israel four-square, without reservation.
It doesn’t contribute to NATO and United Nations missions by sending a rusting destroyer or some other token measure. The army has been re-equipped, the air force is being re-equipped, the navy will be re-equipped, despite plans to rein in the dramatically enlarged defence budget. And this government doesn’t hesitate to send that military overseas in the service of Canadian and allied interests.
The Harper Doctrine permits real money to be spent on foreign aid, but that aid must mirror core Conservative values – so no funding for abortion or for aid groups seen as soft on Israel.
The Harper Doctrine aggressively asserts Canadian sovereignty in the far north, even as it seeks closer integration with the United States on security and trade.
And to execute the Harper Doctrine, Canada has for the first time in a decade a powerful new foreign minister who has the ear of the Prime Minister and who intimately shares his world view. John Baird could be in that job for a while, unlike the seven in ten years who came before.
Harper's detractors in the opposition parties, on university campuses and among some nongovernmental organizations abhor everything about his doctrine: Its slavish adherence to Israel, they say, renders Canada useless as an honest broker in Middle East conflicts.
For them, the billions spent on bringing the military up to grade could have been used to bring the deficit down more quickly, or to reduce inequalities within Canadian society; the interventions in Afghanistan and Libya are simply modern imperialism dressed up in humanitarian garb; Canadian assertions on Arctic sovereignty are unenforceable and wrong in international law, while negotiating a continental security perimeter with the United States will further compromise sovereignty.
For these critics, the empty-headed belligerence of the Harper Doctrine lay behind Canada’s humiliating defeat in its bid for a seat at the Security Council.
The Harper Doctrine is so categorical, and so starkly at odds with NDP and Liberal values, that foreign policy could increasingly become a polarizing element in Canadian politics.
But at least Canada has a foreign policy again. No one is asking where Canada has gone any more.
Editor's Note: The original newspaper version of this article and an earlier online version incorrectly said Afghanistan is part of the Arab world. This online version has been corrected.
More related to this story
•Canadian foreign policy needs to be more independent: Harper
•Calling for patience, Ottawa prepares to extend fight against Gadhafi
•Harper shifts aid policy from grants to backing multilateral lenders
•Ottawa risks a lack of focus in Latin America
724 comments
JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail (Includes Correction)
Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 10:43PM EDT
724 comments Email Print/License Decrease text size
Increase text size A few years ago at a conference in Washington, an American diplomat asked a Canadian journalist a blunt question.
“Why doesn’t Canada show up any more?” he wanted to know. “You’re just not at the table like you used to be.”
Canada under Stephen Harper is, emphatically, back at the table – pounding it, actually, while loudly brandishing what could be called the Harper Doctrine.
Not that long ago, the Canadian military had been starved to the brink of extinction, the federal government had been forced to cut back on peacekeeping commitments, foreign aid was all aspiration and little execution, and our diplomats trumpeted soft power because we had no other kind to offer.
Today, Canada has the political will and military muscle to back up a new and more militant foreign policy.
The Prime Minister reflected this new reality in his triumphalist speech to the Conservative party faithful on the weekend, where he articulated Canada’s approach to the world in a single, potent sentence.
“We know where our interests lie and who our friends are,” he declared, “and we take strong, principled positions in our dealings with other nations, whether popular or not.”
He didn’t call it the Harper Doctrine, but we can. It is startling both in its boldness and its utter lack of nuance.
Under the Harper Doctrine, Canada doesn’t just support the state of Israel. It supports Israel four-square, without reservation.
It doesn’t contribute to NATO and United Nations missions by sending a rusting destroyer or some other token measure. The army has been re-equipped, the air force is being re-equipped, the navy will be re-equipped, despite plans to rein in the dramatically enlarged defence budget. And this government doesn’t hesitate to send that military overseas in the service of Canadian and allied interests.
The Harper Doctrine permits real money to be spent on foreign aid, but that aid must mirror core Conservative values – so no funding for abortion or for aid groups seen as soft on Israel.
The Harper Doctrine aggressively asserts Canadian sovereignty in the far north, even as it seeks closer integration with the United States on security and trade.
And to execute the Harper Doctrine, Canada has for the first time in a decade a powerful new foreign minister who has the ear of the Prime Minister and who intimately shares his world view. John Baird could be in that job for a while, unlike the seven in ten years who came before.
Harper's detractors in the opposition parties, on university campuses and among some nongovernmental organizations abhor everything about his doctrine: Its slavish adherence to Israel, they say, renders Canada useless as an honest broker in Middle East conflicts.
For them, the billions spent on bringing the military up to grade could have been used to bring the deficit down more quickly, or to reduce inequalities within Canadian society; the interventions in Afghanistan and Libya are simply modern imperialism dressed up in humanitarian garb; Canadian assertions on Arctic sovereignty are unenforceable and wrong in international law, while negotiating a continental security perimeter with the United States will further compromise sovereignty.
For these critics, the empty-headed belligerence of the Harper Doctrine lay behind Canada’s humiliating defeat in its bid for a seat at the Security Council.
The Harper Doctrine is so categorical, and so starkly at odds with NDP and Liberal values, that foreign policy could increasingly become a polarizing element in Canadian politics.
But at least Canada has a foreign policy again. No one is asking where Canada has gone any more.
Editor's Note: The original newspaper version of this article and an earlier online version incorrectly said Afghanistan is part of the Arab world. This online version has been corrected.
More related to this story
•Canadian foreign policy needs to be more independent: Harper
•Calling for patience, Ottawa prepares to extend fight against Gadhafi
•Harper shifts aid policy from grants to backing multilateral lenders
•Ottawa risks a lack of focus in Latin America
724 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
